Tricell isn't quite dead. (Mansion Incident / Raccoon City Redux)

[News Bot]

Using years alone to immediately pass scrutiny on a character's age is lol worthy in general. Such banal logic. Then there's the fact that 2008 is not mentioned once in any source.

[Dracarys]

It depends on Chris's exact birth date I guess if in July 1998 Chris is 25 and he's 35 in re5 then it should by the numbers be 2008 unless Chris was born on the dates after his kijuju investigation and July 28

This is in reply to Newsbot also, Chris, Wesker and Jill are all the age they would be if 2008, in Jills case especially it is very clear to see it is not 2009 "and just not had a birthday month yet" because Jill was born in 1974 as clearly shown in the game and in RE3 she is still 23, that means her birthday must be between Oct 2nd and Dec 31st and in 1998 she would have turned 34 on her birthday.

So skip ahead 10 years and it is the same thing, it is 2008 and Jill is 33 as stated in RE5, she hasn't had her birthday that year yet and when she does she will be 34, meaning it cannot be 2009 because she would have to be 34, being 33 means it is not 2009.

A bit too random and just plain strange to use the ages as they are in 2008 if it wasn't 2008 don't you think?


Blaming months as an excuse for it to be wrong is basic math gone wrong.

[Jill4EverSTARS]

http://residentevil.wikia.com/Talk:Jill_Valentine

I found this and it explains a bit LOL at the bottom it is noted News Bot

[News Bot]

.

[Jill4EverSTARS]

Her tombstone writes 1974

[News Bot]

Her tombstone is irrelevant, then. Or it's a remnant from when the game was set 10 years 'after the mansion incident' back in... 2007. At some point, the developers moved it to 2009. If you don't like it, it's your problem. The developers don't care and they've put it on every source, so it is basic fact, whether you like it or not. If you're going to decide your personal belief overrides the developer's, you're pretty wrong.

[Jill4EverSTARS]

That's not fair saying it's irrelevant it's clearly in the game itself I think this debate is pretty much useless on the account that Capcom messed up by accident

[Dracarys]

Oh okay, so you're using Jill as the only example.

Jill was a popsicle for at least a year in cryostasis, try again. Chris and Wesker are born after March.

This is not even an answer or counter defence, I just said Chris, Wesker and Jill are all the 2008 age and you ignore it? Jill is the only detailed example needed to prove it but the other two are there and you cannot just ignore it.

You have no basis for Chris or Weskers birthdays either, you're pulling the march date from nowhere to suit your argument. As far as actual game info goes we know their birthdays are prior to late July, this would suit RE5 as 2008 fine and combined with Jill and the dates in RE5 files that lead up to the July-September timeframe.


At least you tried to defend your 2009 stance at first blaming months but now I just threw out that defence you resort to 'try again' type replies? Am I meant to dignify that?

Blaming her cryogenics is not much of a defence either when Jill is listed as 33 on both BSAA and BS profiles so clearly just using the up to date age across the board. Besides nobody would call Alexia a 12 year old when she awoke either.

That's not fair saying it's irrelevant it's clearly in the game itself

Apparently anything that doesn't support 2009 is irrelevent, even cold hard in-game facts. I mean, a made-up desktop used as promotion for the game does, but not the actual game itself.

[News Bot]

That's not fair saying it's irrelevant it's clearly in the game itself I think this debate is pretty much useless on the account that Capcom messed up by accident

No, it's pretty fair. Inconsistencies between the visuals and actual scenario/script happen occasionally. It's clear that their original intention was 2008, but they pushed it into 2009. That doesn't give KylieDog the authority to decide what's canon and what isn't and start writing it for himself. Maybe they'll correct it in the future, maybe not.

You have no basis for Chris or Weskers birthdays either, you're pulling the march date from nowhere to suit your argument.

God, even with pictures you're impossible.



I had a look at all available sources, and you are indeed correct that the ages are fucked. But the developers > you.

And with that, case closed. Biohazard 5 occurs on March 5, 2009.

[Dracarys]

Using a proven wrong source to back up itself and try give itself credit isn't even a defence.

[Jill4EverSTARS]

Whether or not it takes place in 2009 Jill was still born 1974 and as I said before what this boils down to is that Capcom messed up which is fine seeing as how the series has been around for a while its bound to happen

[News Bot]

Using a proven wrong source to back up itself and try give itself credit isn't even a defence.

LOL. Okay bucko. I guess every word in Biohazard Archives II, its predecessor, and every other written source, including the Wesker's Reports, aren't canon because you're not happy with the lack of the addition of a single digit.

Go find me a single source besides your own personal opinion and conjecture that BH5 is set in 2008. You don't count as a source, I'm afraid. Your obsession with ages is a little weird, to say the least. The characters were written up by the start of development. The date was changed from 2008 to 2009 deliberately mid-way through development, presumably to coincide with the release date (BH5 was originally scheduled for a Q4 2008 release, but got pushed back to Q1 2009), but the character profiles weren't changed (in this case, Jill, who was from the very beginning of development planned for the whole dead-but-not-dead plot). You do realize you can remedy this just by using the year they were born rather than the two digits you are willing to disregard entire books over? Get over yourself.

[Dracarys]

Now you're throwing insults at me because I proved you wrong.


My obsession with ages is weird? Why, because you do not have a defence aganst it? Whatever. The ages are not my opinion they are in-game and mathematical fact.


Now you're taking one thing and blowing it out to be another saying things like "I guess every word in Biohazard Archives II, its predecessor, and every other written source, including the Wesker's Reports, aren't canon because you're not happy with the lack of the addition of a single digit."


Your rational arguments falling apart so just throwing insults, accusations and claiming things were said that were not?


Don't blame character profiles not being updated either and leftovers from old stuff, it is not hard to change a single digit it isn't like they are re-writing the game and they could have remedied this with the re-release but kept in line with the 2008 ages yet again.

[News Bot]

I don't see a source there...

And excuse me, but you do have a reputation for disregarding sources at whim when faced with something you don't like. Dead control Plaga?

[Guest]

Umm...question: Where do the ages of the characters in or around the time of RE5 come from? Chris's is the only one I know.